Reston Wiehle Metrorail Station

Reston Wiehle Metrorail Station
Photo by ehplen, November 2013

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Jet lagged at Dulles, Loudoun Times, April 22, 2015

Wednesday, Apr. 22, 2015 by Trevor Baratko

Anyone who doubts the severity of the problems facing Dulles International Airport – the hundreds of millions in capital debt, dip in passenger totals and a consistent failure to compete with the smaller Reagan National down the road – need only consider the speakers headlining an April 16 seminar on why Dulles matters.

There, in an open conversation hall at AOL's Dulles headquarters, stood a governor, a U.S. Senator, congresswoman and a half-dozen state and local politicians. All were speaking to the airport's importance, and listening were more than 300 stakeholders and interested parties. These were busy people – busy people who made time for Dulles, because they know the airport is struggling, and they know they need solutions.

Passenger counts at Dulles have fallen over the past decade, from a peak of more than 27 million in 2005 to 23.6 million in 2010 and less than 22 million in 2014. Cargo activity too has dipped, about 25 percent in the past five years.

Two key stats further underscoring Dulles' trials note that nearly the same number of travelers used Dulles and Reagan in 2014, this despite Dulles being 14 times larger than Reagan, and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which operates Dulles and Reagan, has racked up about $240 million in annual debt service.

Why does the success and viability of Dulles matter? It's simple, economists and politicians say. The airport generates more than $1.2 billion a year in state and local tax revenue for Virginia, D.C. and Maryland, and it supports nearly 250,000 direct or indirect jobs, according to a study commissioned by MWAA. . . .
Click here for the rest of this article.  

While the downward trend in Dulles air traffic has been know for some time, it's linkage and impact on the rest of the area's County--especially the much vaunted "Dulles Corridor" including Tysons and our own Reston--is another sign of the growing economic difficulty of Fairfax County and especially the Dulles Corridor which is counting on the Silver Line to be the engine of County growth for decades to come.  That fewer people that use or work or ship at Dulles only adds to the growing laundry list of things not quite working the way developers and politicians fantasized more than a decade ago when planning for the Silver Line got serious.

We can hope that completion of the Silver Line through IAD and into Loudoun County, now scheduled for 2018, will help reverse the trend for the airport and the corridor, but it will take a long, long time. 

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Wiehle Station Metro users pay the highest fares in the Metrorail system.

This is Reston 2020's 2,000th post in its 5-1/2 year history in the blogosphere looking after the community planning interests of Restonians!  And more posts are on their way.

A really nifty article and graphic called Metrorail Revenue by Station--Visualized!  at Plan-It Metro shows that the people who use our first Reston Metrorail station pay the highest average fares of any users on the Metrorail system no matter the time of day. 
  • On an all day average, the 8,137 users of the Wiehle station pay $4.34 per entry, the highest anywhere on the Metrorail system.  The second highest average fare goes to the Vienna station at $4.08 per passenger.  In fact, those are the ONLY two stations--both in Fairfax County--that average more than $4.00 per entry in the entire Metrorail system.
  • During the morning peak period, the average 5,079 Wiehle station users pay $5.36 per user, the only users on the Metrorail system who pay more than $5.00 during the AM peak period.
  • During mid-day, Wiehle station users again pay the highest fares in the system at an average of $3.38 per user, just two cents ahead of their Vienna station counterparts.
  • During the afternoon peak period, Metrorail users entering the Wiehle station again pay the highest fare at a $5.18, the only average fare system-wide that exceeds $5.00.
  • And, finally, in the slack evening period, Wiehle station entrants again pay the highest average fares in Metrorail at $3.44, slightly ahead of their Vienna counterparts at $3.33 per person average.
So those who choose not to use the Dulles Toll Road because of the abusive charges to cover the building of the Silver Line also face the highest fares in the Metrorail system, morning, noon, and night.

Why?

Here's the interactive graphic:





Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Reston 2020 asks Planning Commission to correct errors and omissions in Reston land use map.

As the Phase II (suburban) Reston Master Plan draft goes to the County Planning Commission for consideration this week, Reston 2020 has written the Commission asking it to correct a series of omissions and errors in the draft Reston land use map.  The importance of the land use map has been highlighted by the ongoing case of Reston National Golf Course.  Here is the text of the letter sent to the Planning Commission:




 April 20, 2015



Fairfax County Planning Commission
Government Center
12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 330
Fairfax, VA  22035

Re:   Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Item ST09-III-UP1 (B) – Reston Master Plan Phase II

Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff,

                Reston 2020 (an independent committee of the Reston Citizens Association) submits this comment regarding the Staff Report and Appendix A, Recommended Plan Text of the Reston Master Plan.  The Planning Commission’s public hearing on the draft Reston Master Plan Phase II comprehensive plan text is scheduled for this Wednesday, April 22, 2015

                Reston 2020 appreciates the many efforts of current and former county planning staff involved in the Reston Master Plan Special Study, particularly Fred Selden, Heidi Merkel, Richard Lambert and Feheem Darab, who all worked tirelessly on this project.

Phase I of the Special Study began in December 2009 and was completed with the adoption of the Reston Transit Stations Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Board of Supervisors in February 2014.  Phase II kicked off with an open house in June 2014, but the first community meeting was not until September 2014.  County staff published final recommended Phase II comprehensive plan text on April 1, 2015, just six months later.

While Phase II was conducted under the new Fairfax Forward procedures, and thus was highly compressed, it provided some opportunities for citizens and community groups to provide input at four community meetings on varying topics, and subsequently to submit written comments on two staff working comprehensive plan text drafts.  Reston 2020 submitted several such comments.  These included comments in February regarding the importance of ensuring that all existing open space is carefully delineated in the draft plan text.

As recent events have demonstrated, preserving open space is an important, high‑profile issue in Reston.  It is very important that planned land uses for all parcels be fully and accurately described in the Reston Master Plan text, and essential that all existing open spaces be correctly shown on the accompanying maps to ensure their future protection.  As we explained in our February 2015 comment to county staff in this matter,

If the plan text does not specify land use categories for particular parcels or areas, than the maps must be absolutely clear and unambiguous to provide adequate notice to the public, provide necessary information to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors who will be asked to approve the proposed plan amendment and, most importantly, prevent future land use disputes.  In particular, open space representations must fully and accurately reflect existing conditions.
Reston 2020 Email (Feb. 13, 2015) (emphasis added).

                In addition to this commentary, Reston 2020 simultaneously submitted specific additions and corrections to the draft Reston maps.  We noted that,

the [then] draft plan text says the Reston Land Use map identifies private parks, recreation and open space owned by Reston Association, other cluster or condominium associations, other private owners, and Fairfax County.  Indeed, many Reston clusters have common areas owned by the respective homeowners association, typically separate legal parcels (e.g. Parcel A), which are subjected by the deed to county regulations, including regulations regarding open space, tree canopy, etc.  Despite the statement in the text (see page 19 of 76), the open spaces in clusters and condominium neighborhoods do not appear on the land use map.  These open spaces should be added.  In addition, to the extent that there is any doubt regarding the completeness of the maps, notes should be added to both the plan text and the map stating that the open space representations may be incomplete.
Reston 2020 Comments on Draft Maps (Feb. 13, 2015) at 1 (emphasis in original).  Reston 2020 made similar suggestions regarding the draft Reston Parks, Recreation and Open Space map, and the Existing Trails map.  Id. at 2.

Unfortunately, Reston 2020’s comments and suggestions regarding the handling of open space are not reflected in the final staff-recommended drafts.   The staff report and revised plan text continue to state the maps are complete, but open spaces in cluster and condo neighborhoods were not added, nor are there new notes advising readers that open space graphic representations are incomplete.  In fact, the staff report flatly states that all open space is shown, stating

All Public Parks, Private Recreation, and Private Open Space[s] are now reflected in Reston’s Land Use Map and are further detailed in the Parks and Open Space Map.  More parks & recreation facilities and open space are included in the Reston Land Use Map. 

Staff Report at page 7 of 12 (emphasis added).[1]  The draft comprehensive plan text is only slightly less emphatic.  It continues say the “Reston Land Use map identifies property owned by Reston Association, cluster or condominium associations, other private owners, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and Fairfax County.”  Appendix A, PDF at 22-23 of 93.  It also states that,

Reston’s Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces are shown on the map below (Figure 13 (sic)).  The map is an elaboration of the Reston Land Use Map (Figure 4) displaying the parks, recreation and open spaces as described in the Community-wide Land Use section in more detail.  Reston’s Park, Recreation and Open Space map distinguishes between Reston Association’s parks and open spaces, and all other parks, recreation and open spaces in Reston

Appendix A at 43.

                As this discussion aptly demonstrates, the plan’s handling of the open space issue is misleading, at best.  Not only are both the staff report and plan text inaccurate when they state that all private open space is included, but the three maps are not complete because they do not designate all existing open space sites in Reston.

                Therefore, we request (1) that the draft comprehensive plan text for Reston (and accompanying maps) be revised to correct these errors, and (2) that the accompanying draft land use, open space and trails maps be updated to include all existing private open space, including open space owned by clusters and condominium associations.  If the addition of missing private open space on the maps proves logistically impossible, at a minimum notes added to both the plan text and map legends to reflect that not all open space is shown.

                Thank you in advance for your consideration.  Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
    --s--
Terry Maynard
Reston 2020 Committee


CC:
Fred Selden, C/DPZ
Heidi Merkel, DPZ
Faheem Darab, DPZ


[1]  The draft land use maps are Figures 4, 5 and 6.  The draft parks, recreation and open space map is Figure 14.  The existing trails map, which also includes open space designations, is Figure 13.

Op-Ed: Tetra Purchase is Poor Value, Worse Investment, RestonNow, April 20, 2015

This is an op-ed by Reston resident Terry Maynard. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Reston Now.

Contrary to RA President Ellen Graves’ op-ed on Friday, the planned RA purchase of the Tetra property is neither a good value now nor a good investment in the long term. Only Reston voters now can stop this ill-conceived, secretly planned purchase by voting “NO” in the ongoing RA referendum.

The price RA has committed to paying, subject to the referendum vote, is $2.65 million. The $2.65 million price is two and one-half its current market value of the Tetra property as measured by both Fairfax County in its annual real estate assessment and the RA-funded appraisal and property condition report.

The County puts the value of the Tetra property at $1.20 million as of Jan. 1, 2015. That is down about $44,000 from last year. And, as you probably know, the County is obligated under state law to assess real estate at its fair market value.
The property appraisal prepared for RA by The Robert Paul Jones Company, LLC, (RPJ) walks through the property’s “as is” valuation in two ways: comparable sales and income approach. After putting the comparable sales valuation at $1.45 million and the income approach valuation at $1.1 million, it arrives at an “as is” fair market value of $1.3 million. (See p. 22 of the RPJ appraisal.)

The RPJ valuations assume that the building is in good repair. Yet, as RPJ notes in its income valuation of the property, “The subject’s historic maintenance and repair expenses for all expenses, including pest control and some expenses which are considered to be atypical, has averaged $1.74 per square foot on average for 2012 through 2014, ranging from approximately $0.34 per square foot in 2012 to $2.95 per square foot in 2014. We have stabilized this amount at $1.25 per square foot of GBA, or $3,910 annually.” (Page 20 of the appraisal.)

At its three-year average, annual maintenance and repair costs over the last three years actually reach more $5,440 –some 39 percent higher than the value “stabilized” by RPJ. Why we should expect future maintenance and repair costs to be lower than recent ones remains a mystery.

Yet, the Tetra building is not in good repair as RA directed the appraiser to assume (“deferred maintenance has been corrected”, p. 2). The property condition report from Criterium Engineers attests puts the needed repairs at about one-quarter million dollars; specifically, $257,410 over the next decade including $144,364 that needs to be done right away (see p. 4).

So, the true “as is” value of the Tetra property in good condition is the fair market value of $1.2-$1.4 million less the needed repairs of $257,410 to put it in good condition. That’s a net fair market price of the Tetra property in good condition of $943,000 to $1.143 million, call it $1 million dollars, nowhere near the $2.65 million that RA is committed to pay if this referendum is approved (although RA may get the priced reduced by the cost of immediate repairs–$144,000 — to roughly $2.5 million).

The only reasons that the price has been fixed at $2.65 million are that the President of Tetra Properties is insisting on receiving that price and the fact that the appraisal assumes, by RA direction, that a 6,930-square-foot restaurant can be added to the property, an extremely unlikely prospect given the restrictions on the property reflected in Tetra’s inability to sell the property to any restaurants for years. Otherwise, paying more than $1 million for the property is a grand waste of Restonians’ assessment fees.

Moreover, if RA is allowed by Reston voters to proceed with this “investment,” it will lose money for more than three decades, doubling the life of the current building. Using RA’s assumptions about the revenues and expenses of purchasing and operating the property in the RA “Fact Sheet” with some further assumptions about the longer term, we anticipate that cumulative losses will peak at $2.0 million 20 years from now, the last year in which RA has to make mortgage payments.

http://www.restonnow.com/files/2015/04/tetragraph1.png

These calculations are shown in a Reston 2020 post. Extending this analysis out to 2050 (and adding only $10,000 annually for capital repairs and replacements after 2035) shows that the cumulative loss begins to shrink after the mortgage is paid, but does not reach break even or better until 2048 — 33 years from now.

The Tetra building will be 66 years old in 2048 and probably need to be torn down if it hasn’t been torn down already. And it cannot be re-built. The County’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance calls for the return to a natural state of all Resource Protection Areas (RPAs), such as this one, at the end of the natural life of existing structures. RA may never realize cumulative revenue on its purchase of the Tetra property.

Assuming the building is still standing and usable in 2050, RA’s cumulative annual return on investment will be 0.5 percent over the next 35 years. And, in real terms, assuming a 3-percent inflation rate as RA does, it will still be a losing investment, providing Restonians a negative 2.5 percent return annually for the next 3 1/2 decades. We would do better as an investment by putting Restonians’ $2.65 million in a money market account.

In sum, RA is willing to pay more than 2 1/2 times the current value of the Tetra property and we can expect that RA’s investment will lose money for the rest of the building’s useful life. It is a horrible purchase value and even more atrocious long-term RA investment. Vote “NO” on the Tetra property purchase to save Restonians’ money, sustain RA’s good financial reputation, and prevent unneeded spending.

Monday, April 20, 2015

US Census estimates say people are leaving Fairfax County.

An article by Antonio Olivo in the Washington Post, April 20, 2015, says Fairfax County experienced the worst net migration in the Washington metro area in 2014 according to US Census data.  


Here's how the article begins:

 After decades of expansion, new census numbers show that population growth in the Washington region has slowed dramatically, with Fairfax County, Arlington County and Alexandria seeing more people move out of those communities than move in over the past year.
The numbers offer stark evidence that a region defined for much of the last half-century for its affluence and growth is entering a different phase, when federal spending cuts are slowing job gains and declining suburbs are presenting new challenges for local leaders — even as pockets of extreme wealth continue to boom.
The portrait is emerging at a time when the nation is recovering from a deep recession that the Washington region largely avoided.
“Especially for young people, this may be the tip of the iceberg,” said William H. Frey, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “If the broader picture is that there are more jobs in a place like Atlanta or Charlotte, then maybe some of that is pulling people away from D.C.”
The new census estimates show a dramatic trend in “out­migration” last year, with the number of people moving away on the rise — and the number moving in going down. . .
Now, Fairfax (County) is also known as the epicenter of “sequestration” — the federal budget cuts of 2013 that eliminated, according to a George Mason University analysis, 10,800 federal jobs (a 3 percent decline) and many hundreds more among federal contractors. Last year, federal spending in the region was $11 billion lower than 2010 — a 14 percent decline — according to the analysis.
All of which helps explains how Virginia’s largest county has edged closer and closer to an outright population decline. . . .

    Click here for the rest of this article.  

Long term net outmigration would have a number of effects on Fairfax County and the other counties where it is occurring, virtually all of them negative, especially if the total population starts sinking.  (We're gaining population only because of births at this time.)  Demand for housing (and, therefore, house prices) will decline, slower--or no--growth in the commercial office market that the County Board is relying on to boost employment and tax revenues in Tysons and Reston, real estate tax rates may need to increase to offset the losses or absence of growth.  In general, it may mean less economic activity in the County (vice the "booming" economy we've experienced).  On the other side of the coin, it could mean reduced growth (or actual declines) in County expenditures on a variety of programs, starting with schools (fewer children) and other public infrastructure.  

It will be important to see if this apparent trend continues or if its just an aberration.   In fact, it could even represent US Census error.  For example, the US Census estimated Reston population was approaching 65,000 people late in the last decade.  The 2010 census showed it to be less than 59,000.  Possibly the US Census is over-correcting for its earlier estimating errors.

Maybe most importantly, the article features a photo of Diane Blust, long-time Reston resident and former President of Sustainable Reston.  She is hard at work living the lifestyle she espouses near Harpers Ferry, WVA.

Diane Blust spreads fresh soil around the perimeter of her house on April 2 in Harpers Ferry, W.Va. Blust lived in Reston, Va., for 37 years before moving to Harpers Ferry to start her permaculture and sustainable living homestead. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

Three meetings this week on St. John’s Wood redevelopment proposal

Update:  We've appended to this post the full redevelopment engineering plan and various renderings, drawings, photos, etc., prepared by the developer.

Three important meetings will be held this week on Bozzuto Development’s proposal to raze the St. John’s Wood apartments in North Reston (northeast corner of Reston Parkway and Center Harbor Road) and build new medium or high-density residential on the site:

The Reston Planning & Zoning Committee (Reston P&Z), a local advisory group, will receive a presentation on the St. John’s Wood redevelopment proposal during its monthly meeting on Monday, April 20, 2015.  The Reston P&Z meeting (agenda not yet posted) begins at 7:30 p.m. in the Community Room at the new North County Government Center, 1801 Cameron Glen Drive, Reston VA.

The full Reston Association Design Review Board (Reston DRB) also will receive a presentation at its monthly meeting on Tuesday, April 21, 2015.  The DRB meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the Conference Center at Reston Association headquarters, 12001 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston VA.  According to the agenda, the presentation to the DRB is informational only; no decisions will be made.

The Fairfax County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on draft revised Comprehensive Plan text for Reston’s Phase 2 areas (all areas outside the transit corridor and Reston Town Center), including the St. John’s Wood site, at a meeting on Wednesday, April 22, 2015 beginning at 8:15 p.m. in the Board Auditorium of the Fairfax County Government Center, 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax VA.  (Planning Commission meetings are televised on local Channel 16 and streamed live and on‑demand on the Planning Commission’s web site.)

Last summer, Bozzuto filed applications with Fairfax County government to replace the existing nine garden apartment buildings (250 units) with three new midrise buildings (625 units total) and 34 townhouses.  Occupancy would nearly triple on the site.

In December, Bozzuto made an informational presentation to a joint meeting of Reston P&Z, Reston DRB, and Reston Association senior leaders, where conceptual drawings of the St. John’s Wood project were shared.  At that meeting, the Bozzuto proposal was heavily criticized as too urban and totally inappropriate for a suburban area outside the corridor and village centers, and Bozzuto representatives suggested they might make changes.  Bozzuto’s changes, if any, have not yet been made public, and the meetings on Monday and Tuesday evenings (Reston P&Z and Reston DRB) will be the first opportunity for the public to learn the current status of Bozzuto’s proposal.

In addition, the current Reston Master Plan specifies high density for the St. John’s Wood site, but the county’s draft comprehensive plan text (to be considered by the Planning Commission on Wednesday) recommends medium or perhaps even low-density for the site.  (There are differing interpretations of the symbology on the county’s draft land use maps.)  The St. John’s Wood property owner did not submit a redevelopment proposal during the Reston Master Plan review process, but its counsel recently submitted a letter requesting the right to develop at higher density as permitted under the current Reston Master Plan or a site-specific exception for the property.  This letter likely will be discussed at Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, and may provide insights regarding the St. John’s Wood project’s prospects at the county level when the Bozzuto proposals are considered by the Planning Commission this summer.

Status information regarding the pending redevelopment applications is available on the Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning site (under Tax Map Number, enter Grid 011, Quad 4, Double Circle 01, and Lot 0012).

Attached below are (a) the proffered redevelopment plan amendment for redeveloping St. Johns Woods and (b) some renderings on what the redeveloped site might look like.  

 

Friday, April 17, 2015

More questions and answers on the Tetra property acquistion

We present three e-mails below.  First is a small set of questions from a cluster president to Mr. Rick Beyer regarding his "context" e-mail we've previously published with Terry Maynard's comments.  Second is Mr. Beyer's response.  And finally you'll see Mr. John Farrell's response to Mr. Beyer.  They are presented in order below without e-email addresses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick - 
Thank you for your emails. I have two questions:  
1. On the assessment, whose is it - Tetra's?  Why is it so much higher than the County's? If the higher assessment is  based in part on development, what exactly does RA propose in the way of development?  I don't expect a rescue like this to make money, but the $200K that you mention - what does that come from?
2. What is your response to the suggestion that environmental restrictions and easements already prevent development by Tetra?  Is this land subject to development or not? Why hasn't Tetra developed the property over the 17 years that it has controlled the site?
Thanks for your reply,
John *******

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From:  Rick Beyer

John,
Thanks for your note and good questions.  

The appraisal did not come Tetra.  RA has received  two separate appraisals provided Robert Paul Jones Company – certified appraisers, based on Fairfax - $2.65 Million and $2.76 on separate dates – both have detailed comps;  Documentation is on file.  Also Rescue Reston coalition reached out to their legal counsel (Stephanie C. Reger) who confirmed $2.6 Mil comp is on the low end. RA is buying for $2.6 million, the lake front facility and 3.5 acres of property.

Regarding the county assessment which is lower; this  used  for tax assessment purposes.  A good reference is to look at your own  home and its county assessment.    If we all sold our own  homes at the county assessment, we might be very disappointed.  The county assessment is usually  40% to 50% lower than actual market. 

The $200k as part of the transaction comes from Tetra. RA also has a lease commitment for up to $200k from Tetra. RA is also getting $650k proffer from a developer as part of a common area contribution to RA.

Regarding the land; yes it can be developed, even with certain restrictions and would be much more valuable than $2.6 Mil.  Why hasn't Tetra developed?  They wanted to construct 50,000 sq  ft of buildings which was going to greatly impact the RA member tennis area; but the RA members fought this as it would significantly disrupt the continuous 98 acres of common property owned by RA members.

This is a very good transaction for RA members and I hope you can vote YES to ratify the unanimous board decision.

All the best,
Rick Beyer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:  John W. Farrell


 John

Terry forwarded Mr. Beyer’s latest e-mail to you and asked me to respond because I am a real estate & land use attorney who has practiced in Fairfax County and lived in Reston since 1984.

I think he also thought it would be appropriate for me to respond since I am the cluster President of Colonial Oaks.

There is only one appraisal that Reston Association has disclosed. It's dated February 4, 2015, is 95 pages long, and basically agrees with Fairfax County that the “as is” value of the Tetra property is $1.3 million.  

The County is required by the Virginia Constitution to assess all real estate at its “fair market value.”  That’s the same standard that appraisers are required to follow.   In 2014, the County said the Tetra property was worth $1.246 million.  In 2015, the County said the property had lost value and was worth only $1.204 million.  To suggest that the County would voluntarily underassess real estate by 50% is to suggest that the County would voluntarily forego $10,000 in tax revenue from the Tetra property.

So how does the appraisal get the extra value?  It claims that additional office space would be worth that money.  But it quotes the current owner, on page 13,  saying there can be no expansion of the office space.  

The appraisal does mention that a 1981 drawing shows an additional restaurant but the appraisal then fails to find any comparable sales for a restaurant.  

The office comparable sales the appraisal does cite are not located in Reston but rather are found in Falls Church and Fairfax City.  Most of these comparable sales are so different from the Tera property that the appraiser had to adjust the values by 50%.  If a comparable needs that great an adjustment, most appraisers and courts would find that it is not a comparable property.
Could the restaurant even be built?  No.  Since the 1981 drawing, Fairfax County has adopted the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance that imposes a 100 foot no build zone around every water body including Lake Newport.  Further, recently adopted stormwater regulations makes building anything at this site difficult.

Also, most of the parcel is subject to a parking easement held by Reston Association and a floodplain and stormwater drainage easement held by the County.  These easements significantly restrict what can be built on the site even if the Ches Bay Ordinance didn’t preclude development.

Two different restaurant owners have looked at the site and rejected it.  The site’s lack of visibility from Baron Cameron is a serious impediment to a restaurant as the appraisal suggests. 

No 50,000 square foot buildings are referenced in the RA appraisal or in any other documents.

What Mr. Beyer repeatedly fails to disclose in his blizzard of e-mails is that his house is one of only 2-4 houses that directly overlooks the Tetra property and would be the principal beneficiary of RA’s purchase.

I’m happy to answer any questions that you or anyone else has regarding this issue.
John W. Farrell 
Attorney at Law 
1350 Random Hills Road | Suite 500
Fairfax, Virginia 22030-7421
email  jfarrell@mccandlishlawyers.com
tel (703) 934-1182 | cell (703) 507-1182